Showing posts with label food chain. Show all posts
Showing posts with label food chain. Show all posts
Monday, February 7, 2011
Monday, August 9, 2010
Crabs provide evidence oil tainting Gulf food chain
(But the FDA and USDA just said Gulf seafood was OK to eat. Who trusts the government any more? It is comprised of lying corporate shills from top to bottom. Don't eat Gulf seafood. It's bad for you now.--jef)
***
JOHN FLESHER | AP News | Aug 09, 2010 05:33 EDT
To assess how heavy a blow the BP oil spill has dealt the Gulf of Mexico, researchers are closely watching a staple of the seafood industry and primary indicator of the ecosystem's health: the blue crab.
Weeks ago, before engineers pumped in mud and cement to plug the gusher, scientists began finding specks of oil in crab larvae plucked from waters across the Gulf coast.
The government said last week that three-quarters of the spilled oil has been removed or naturally dissipated from the water. But the crab larvae discovery was an ominous sign that crude had already infiltrated the Gulf's vast food web — and could affect it for years to come.
"It would suggest the oil has reached a position where it can start moving up the food chain instead of just hanging in the water," said Bob Thomas, a biologist at Loyola University in New Orleans. "Something likely will eat those oiled larvae ... and then that animal will be eaten by something bigger and so on."
Tiny creatures might take in such low amounts of oil that they could survive, Thomas said. But those at the top of the chain, such as dolphins and tuna, could get fatal "megadoses."
Marine biologists routinely gather shellfish for study. Since the spill began, many of the crab larvae collected have had the distinctive orange oil droplets, said Harriet Perry, a biologist with the University of Southern Mississippi's Gulf Coast Research Laboratory.
"In my 42 years of studying crabs I've never seen this," Perry said.
She wouldn't estimate how much of the crab larvae are contaminated overall, but said about 40 percent of the area they are known to inhabit has been affected by oil from the spill.
Tulane University researchers are investigating whether the splotches also contain toxic chemical dispersants that were spread to break up the oil but have reached no conclusions, biologist Caz Taylor said.
If large numbers of blue crab larvae are tainted, their population is virtually certain to take a hit over the next year and perhaps longer, scientists say.
How large the die-off would be is unclear, Perry said. An estimated 207 million gallons of oil have spewed into the Gulf since an April 20 drilling rig explosion triggered the spill, and thousands of gallons of dispersant chemicals have been dumped.
Scientists will be focusing on crabs because they're a "keystone species" that play a crucial role in the food web as both predator and prey, Perry said.
Richard Condrey, a Louisiana State University oceanographer, said the crabs are "a living repository of information on the health of the environment."
Named for the light-blue tint of their claws, the crabs have thick shells and 10 legs, allowing them to swim and scuttle across bottomlands. As adults, they live in the Gulf's bays and estuaries amid marshes that offer protection and abundant food, including snails, tiny shellfish, plants and even smaller crabs. In turn, they provide sustenance for a variety of wildlife, from redfish to raccoons and whooping cranes.
Adults could be harmed by direct contact with oil and from eating polluted food. But scientists are particularly worried about the vulnerable larvae.
That's because females don't lay their eggs in sheltered places, but in areas where estuaries meet the open sea. Condrey discovered several years ago that some even deposit offspring on shoals miles offshore in the Gulf.
The larvae grow as they drift with the currents back toward the estuaries for a month or longer. Many are eaten by predators, and only a handful of the 3 million or so eggs from a single female live to adulthood.
But their survival could drop even lower if the larvae run into oil and dispersants.
"Crabs are very abundant. I don't think we're looking at extinction or anything close to it," said Taylor, one of the researchers who discovered the orange spots.
Still, crabs and other estuary-dependent species such as shrimp and red snapper could feel the effects of remnants of the spill for years, Perry said.
"There could be some mortality, but how much is impossible to say at this point," said Vince Guillory, biologist manager with the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries.
Perry, Taylor and Condrey will be among scientists monitoring crabs for negative effects such as population drop-offs and damage to reproductive capabilities and growth rates.
Crabs are big business in the region. In Louisiana alone, some 33 million pounds are harvested annually, generating nearly $300 million in economic activity, Guillory said.
But fishermen who can make a six-figure income off crabs in a good year now are now idled — and worried about the future.
"If they'd let us go out and fish today, we'd probably catch crabs," said Glen Despaux, 37, who sets his traps in Louisiana's Barataria Bay. "But what's going to happen next year, if this water is polluted and it's killing the eggs and the larvae? I think it's going to be a long-term problem."
Thursday, August 5, 2010
England: Meat from two cloned bulls illegally entered the human food chain
Beef was sold in May and has been eaten, says FSA
Severin Carrell and James Meikle
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 4 August 2010
Beef from a second bull bred from a clone has illegally entered the human food chain and has been eaten in the last few months, safety officials have disclosed.
The Food Standards Agency said it had now traced all four cows and four bulls that were bred in Britain from embryos harvested from a cloned cow in the US, as the controversy over the use of cloned animals intensified.
The agency discovered that meat from two of the bulls has been eaten while farm inspectors were still trying to establish whether milk from two of the cows had been sold for human consumption. While there was no known risk to human health, the agency said meat from the second bull, called Parable, was sold for food in May. The FSA has not specified the farm the animal came from.
As the agency's investigation into the illegal sale of cloned milk and meat gathered pace, an investigation by The Guardian has found that the Scottish dairy farm which sold cloned beef has twice been fined for breaching strict rules on the identification and movement of cattle.
The family owned firm of Callum Innes & Sons, Scotland's largest breeder of pedigree Holstein dairy cows, was first docked £1,480 after being caught failing to properly identify cattle in 2006 and then nearly £9,400 for failing to register the movement of cattle in 2009.
It emerged yesterday that the farm, known as Newmeadows Holsteins near Nairn east of Inverness, had sold meat from one of its two bulls in July last year. Their second bull was slaughtered later last month but the FSA stopped its meat being sold for human consumption.
The FSA is now investigating whether the Innes's and a second farm, which the agency has refused to name, have breached safety rules which prevent the sale of untested "novel" foods.
But it is now expected that 97 Holstein dairy cows the Innes's bred from both bulls may have to be slaughtered because their milk cannot legally be sold.
The FSA is adamant that it is illegal to sell meat and milk from the offspring of clones under the European commission's novel food regulations, despite claims by commission officials that the UK was over-reacting.
Tim Smith, the FSA chief executive, said that while there was no scientific evidence that they posed any risk to human health, there had so far been no official safety tests to confirm this and food suppliers needed authorisation before selling them.
The Innes's insisted today they had followed all the correct procedures on registering both bulls; a claim supported yesterday by the National Farmers Union Scotland and the Holstein UK breeders association, which registers their pedigree and records their entire breeding history.
The NFUS and Holstein UK said the fault lay with the cattle tracing scheme, the "passport" which has been given to 10m cows at birth. It was introduced in the wake of the BSE or "mad cow" crisis in 1998. The passport does not require farmers to record the fact an animal was from cloned stock.
Caroline Spelman, the environment secretary, admitted that was a loophole which needed tightening up. "If we need to change our procedures to ensure full traceability of cloned cattle and their offspring in the UK, then we will work with our European partners to ensure that this happens," she said.
Steven Innes, Callum Innes's son, said today the fines paid by the farm were small penalties for technical breaches of the cattle registration scheme which were entirely unrelated to the controversy over the cloned bulls.
He told The Guardian they were "completely innocent" of any wrongdoing with the two bulls, called Dundee Paratrooper and Dundee Perfect, and said they expected to be cleared of breaking the law on novel foods within the next two weeks.
He said they had known the bulls were from a cloned cow before they bought them in February 1998, but had first checked it was legal to buy them with Holstein UK. They also contacted the local agriculture department office before bringing the bulls to Nairn, and then openly listed them as from a clone with the government's cattle registration office.
"We've been very open about the bulls, and we've told people clearly what they were and what their heritages was, and have never hidden it," he said. The local abattoir also accepted both bulls as being fit for human consumption.
"I think there has been a severe cock-up," he said. "There has been a breakdown in communications between all the different departments. I can't point the finger at anybody. I don't think anyone on their own is to blame."
Innes added that the fate of the 97 calves, which are currently too young to produce milk, would be decided "over the next couple of weeks". He confirmed it was highly unlikely now that their milk would be sold. "If there's any doubt at all, we will not try to put anything into the food chain, milk or otherwise," he said.
Hugh Pennington, emeritus professor of microbiology at the University of Aberdeen, said meat and milk from cloned cows posed no health risks. "It is perfectly safe," he said. "They are just the same as their parents from the genetic point of view so there's no problem there."
Severin Carrell and James Meikle
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 4 August 2010
Beef from a second bull bred from a clone has illegally entered the human food chain and has been eaten in the last few months, safety officials have disclosed.
The Food Standards Agency said it had now traced all four cows and four bulls that were bred in Britain from embryos harvested from a cloned cow in the US, as the controversy over the use of cloned animals intensified.
The agency discovered that meat from two of the bulls has been eaten while farm inspectors were still trying to establish whether milk from two of the cows had been sold for human consumption. While there was no known risk to human health, the agency said meat from the second bull, called Parable, was sold for food in May. The FSA has not specified the farm the animal came from.
As the agency's investigation into the illegal sale of cloned milk and meat gathered pace, an investigation by The Guardian has found that the Scottish dairy farm which sold cloned beef has twice been fined for breaching strict rules on the identification and movement of cattle.
The family owned firm of Callum Innes & Sons, Scotland's largest breeder of pedigree Holstein dairy cows, was first docked £1,480 after being caught failing to properly identify cattle in 2006 and then nearly £9,400 for failing to register the movement of cattle in 2009.
It emerged yesterday that the farm, known as Newmeadows Holsteins near Nairn east of Inverness, had sold meat from one of its two bulls in July last year. Their second bull was slaughtered later last month but the FSA stopped its meat being sold for human consumption.
The FSA is now investigating whether the Innes's and a second farm, which the agency has refused to name, have breached safety rules which prevent the sale of untested "novel" foods.
But it is now expected that 97 Holstein dairy cows the Innes's bred from both bulls may have to be slaughtered because their milk cannot legally be sold.
The FSA is adamant that it is illegal to sell meat and milk from the offspring of clones under the European commission's novel food regulations, despite claims by commission officials that the UK was over-reacting.
Tim Smith, the FSA chief executive, said that while there was no scientific evidence that they posed any risk to human health, there had so far been no official safety tests to confirm this and food suppliers needed authorisation before selling them.
The Innes's insisted today they had followed all the correct procedures on registering both bulls; a claim supported yesterday by the National Farmers Union Scotland and the Holstein UK breeders association, which registers their pedigree and records their entire breeding history.
The NFUS and Holstein UK said the fault lay with the cattle tracing scheme, the "passport" which has been given to 10m cows at birth. It was introduced in the wake of the BSE or "mad cow" crisis in 1998. The passport does not require farmers to record the fact an animal was from cloned stock.
Caroline Spelman, the environment secretary, admitted that was a loophole which needed tightening up. "If we need to change our procedures to ensure full traceability of cloned cattle and their offspring in the UK, then we will work with our European partners to ensure that this happens," she said.
Steven Innes, Callum Innes's son, said today the fines paid by the farm were small penalties for technical breaches of the cattle registration scheme which were entirely unrelated to the controversy over the cloned bulls.
He told The Guardian they were "completely innocent" of any wrongdoing with the two bulls, called Dundee Paratrooper and Dundee Perfect, and said they expected to be cleared of breaking the law on novel foods within the next two weeks.
He said they had known the bulls were from a cloned cow before they bought them in February 1998, but had first checked it was legal to buy them with Holstein UK. They also contacted the local agriculture department office before bringing the bulls to Nairn, and then openly listed them as from a clone with the government's cattle registration office.
"We've been very open about the bulls, and we've told people clearly what they were and what their heritages was, and have never hidden it," he said. The local abattoir also accepted both bulls as being fit for human consumption.
"I think there has been a severe cock-up," he said. "There has been a breakdown in communications between all the different departments. I can't point the finger at anybody. I don't think anyone on their own is to blame."
Innes added that the fate of the 97 calves, which are currently too young to produce milk, would be decided "over the next couple of weeks". He confirmed it was highly unlikely now that their milk would be sold. "If there's any doubt at all, we will not try to put anything into the food chain, milk or otherwise," he said.
Hugh Pennington, emeritus professor of microbiology at the University of Aberdeen, said meat and milk from cloned cows posed no health risks. "It is perfectly safe," he said. "They are just the same as their parents from the genetic point of view so there's no problem there."
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Oil spill creates huge undersea 'dead zones'
Clouds of crude and chemical dispersants have formed in the Gulf of Mexico and oceanologists fear these could have devastating effects on the food chain
By Emily Dugan
The world's most damaging oil spill – now in its 41st continuously gushing day – is creating huge unseen "dead zones" in the Gulf of Mexico, according to oceanologists and toxicologists. They say that if their fears are correct, then the sea's entire food chain could suffer years of devastation, with almost no marine life in the region escaping its effects.
While the sight of tar balls and oil-covered birds on Louisiana's shoreline has been the most visible sign of the spill's environmental destruction, many scientists now believe it is underwater contamination that will have the deadliest impact. At least two submerged clouds of noxious oil and chemical dispersants have been confirmed by research vessels, and scientists are seeing initial signs of several more. The largest is some 22 miles long, six miles wide and 3,300 feet deep – a volume that would take up half of Lake Erie. Another spans an area of 20 square miles.
More than 8,300 species of plants and animals are at risk. Some, such as the bluefin tuna, which come to the Gulf to spawn, could even face extinction. Scientists predict it will be many months – even years – before the true toll of the disaster will be known.
In previous spills, oil rose to the surface and was dealt with there, but due to the use of dispersants, as well as the weight of this particular crude oil and the pressure created by the depth of the leak, much of the oil has stayed submerged in clouds of tiny particles. At least 800,000 gallons of dispersants were sprayed at escaping oil in a frantic attempt to keep it offshore, but it now seems this preventative measure has created a worse disaster. The chemicals helped to keep the oil submerged and are toxic to marine life, resulting in unprecedented underwater damage to organisms in the Gulf.
Once these harmful substances enter the food chain, almost nothing will escape their effects. Forests of coral, sharks, dolphins, sea turtles, game fish and thousands of shellfish could all face destruction. What happens next to these underwater clouds – or plumes – depends largely on the currents. If they do eventually rise to the surface, they may end up on the shoreline months or years from now, causing a second wave of destruction.
The leak itself is far from over. With up to 40 million gallons of oil now in the sea, efforts to plug the hole (disgorging up to 19,000 barrels a day) have become frantic. Since Wednesday, BP has been trying to block the source by blasting it with mud and concrete. On Friday, things took a more desperate turn as BP added a dubious-sounding "junk shot" of shredded rubber and golf balls. BP's chief operating officer, Doug Suttles, said yesterday: "To date it hasn't yet stopped the flow. What I don't know is whether it ultimately will or not."
"It's the biggest environmental disaster of our time and it's not even over yet," said the marine toxicologist Dr Susan Shaw, director of the Marine Environmental Research Institute based in Maine. She has been diving among the damage and is horrified by the contamination caused by BP's continued use of dispersants. "They've been used at such a high volume that it's unprecedented. The worst of these – Corexit 9527 – is the one they've been using most. That ruptures red blood cells and causes fish to bleed. With 800,000 gallons of this, we can only imagine the death that will be caused."
According to Dr Shaw, plankton and smaller shrimps coated in these toxic chemicals will be eaten by larger fish, passing the deadly mix up the food chain. "This is dismantling the food web, piece by piece," she said. "We'll see dead bodies soon. Sharks, dolphins, sea turtles, whales: the impact on predators will be seen in a short time because the food web will be impacted from the bottom up."
The largest of the clouds, confirmed by a University of South Florida research ship last week, has gone deeper than the spill itself, defying BP's assurances that all oil would rise to the surface. It is now headed north-east of the rig, towards the DeSoto Canyon. This underwater trench could channel the noxious soup along the Florida coast, impacting on fisheries and coating 100-year-old coral forests. Tests on the toxicity of another chemical cloud, some 10 miles long and heading south-west of the site, are also being done by scientists from the University of Georgia.
Marine biologists say the timing of this underwater contamination could not be more catastrophic. "This is when all the animals are reproducing and hatching, so the damage at this depth will be much worse," said Dr Larry McKinney, director of the Harte Research Institute for Gulf of Mexico Studies in Texas. "We're not talking about adults on the surface; it will impact on the young – and potentially a generational life cycle."
This could wipe out more precarious species. "Bluefin tuna spawn just south of the oil spill and they spawn only in the Gulf. If they were to go through the area at a critical time, that's one instance where a plume could destroy a whole species."
What happens next to these suspended clouds worries scientists. Nobody knows how long it will take them to reach the surface and come towards the shore (if they ever do).
Dr Peter Roopnarine, an invertebrate zoologist and geologist at the California Academy of Sciences, is conducting tests on molluscs. He fears a second wave of wetland damage from these sub-surface plumes. "The organisms we're working with are in shallow sub-tidal waters and in the salt marshes, so we won't get immediate results from a plume. But we could end up seeing two disasters on shore, because the plume will eventually work its way there."
With no confirmation that BP's attempts to stop the flow of oil have succeeded, the damage is likely to get worse. If this "top kill" method of plugging the hole with concrete and mud fails, then the only option left is a relief well, which will take until August at the earliest to become operational. In the meantime, the surrounding ocean will become deadlier every day that passes. And even if the plug works, it may well be too late. As Dr McKinney pointed out: "At the depth that these plumes are at, the sea will be toxic for God knows how long."
By Emily Dugan
The world's most damaging oil spill – now in its 41st continuously gushing day – is creating huge unseen "dead zones" in the Gulf of Mexico, according to oceanologists and toxicologists. They say that if their fears are correct, then the sea's entire food chain could suffer years of devastation, with almost no marine life in the region escaping its effects.
While the sight of tar balls and oil-covered birds on Louisiana's shoreline has been the most visible sign of the spill's environmental destruction, many scientists now believe it is underwater contamination that will have the deadliest impact. At least two submerged clouds of noxious oil and chemical dispersants have been confirmed by research vessels, and scientists are seeing initial signs of several more. The largest is some 22 miles long, six miles wide and 3,300 feet deep – a volume that would take up half of Lake Erie. Another spans an area of 20 square miles.
More than 8,300 species of plants and animals are at risk. Some, such as the bluefin tuna, which come to the Gulf to spawn, could even face extinction. Scientists predict it will be many months – even years – before the true toll of the disaster will be known.
In previous spills, oil rose to the surface and was dealt with there, but due to the use of dispersants, as well as the weight of this particular crude oil and the pressure created by the depth of the leak, much of the oil has stayed submerged in clouds of tiny particles. At least 800,000 gallons of dispersants were sprayed at escaping oil in a frantic attempt to keep it offshore, but it now seems this preventative measure has created a worse disaster. The chemicals helped to keep the oil submerged and are toxic to marine life, resulting in unprecedented underwater damage to organisms in the Gulf.
Once these harmful substances enter the food chain, almost nothing will escape their effects. Forests of coral, sharks, dolphins, sea turtles, game fish and thousands of shellfish could all face destruction. What happens next to these underwater clouds – or plumes – depends largely on the currents. If they do eventually rise to the surface, they may end up on the shoreline months or years from now, causing a second wave of destruction.
The leak itself is far from over. With up to 40 million gallons of oil now in the sea, efforts to plug the hole (disgorging up to 19,000 barrels a day) have become frantic. Since Wednesday, BP has been trying to block the source by blasting it with mud and concrete. On Friday, things took a more desperate turn as BP added a dubious-sounding "junk shot" of shredded rubber and golf balls. BP's chief operating officer, Doug Suttles, said yesterday: "To date it hasn't yet stopped the flow. What I don't know is whether it ultimately will or not."
"It's the biggest environmental disaster of our time and it's not even over yet," said the marine toxicologist Dr Susan Shaw, director of the Marine Environmental Research Institute based in Maine. She has been diving among the damage and is horrified by the contamination caused by BP's continued use of dispersants. "They've been used at such a high volume that it's unprecedented. The worst of these – Corexit 9527 – is the one they've been using most. That ruptures red blood cells and causes fish to bleed. With 800,000 gallons of this, we can only imagine the death that will be caused."
According to Dr Shaw, plankton and smaller shrimps coated in these toxic chemicals will be eaten by larger fish, passing the deadly mix up the food chain. "This is dismantling the food web, piece by piece," she said. "We'll see dead bodies soon. Sharks, dolphins, sea turtles, whales: the impact on predators will be seen in a short time because the food web will be impacted from the bottom up."
The largest of the clouds, confirmed by a University of South Florida research ship last week, has gone deeper than the spill itself, defying BP's assurances that all oil would rise to the surface. It is now headed north-east of the rig, towards the DeSoto Canyon. This underwater trench could channel the noxious soup along the Florida coast, impacting on fisheries and coating 100-year-old coral forests. Tests on the toxicity of another chemical cloud, some 10 miles long and heading south-west of the site, are also being done by scientists from the University of Georgia.
Marine biologists say the timing of this underwater contamination could not be more catastrophic. "This is when all the animals are reproducing and hatching, so the damage at this depth will be much worse," said Dr Larry McKinney, director of the Harte Research Institute for Gulf of Mexico Studies in Texas. "We're not talking about adults on the surface; it will impact on the young – and potentially a generational life cycle."
This could wipe out more precarious species. "Bluefin tuna spawn just south of the oil spill and they spawn only in the Gulf. If they were to go through the area at a critical time, that's one instance where a plume could destroy a whole species."
What happens next to these suspended clouds worries scientists. Nobody knows how long it will take them to reach the surface and come towards the shore (if they ever do).
Dr Peter Roopnarine, an invertebrate zoologist and geologist at the California Academy of Sciences, is conducting tests on molluscs. He fears a second wave of wetland damage from these sub-surface plumes. "The organisms we're working with are in shallow sub-tidal waters and in the salt marshes, so we won't get immediate results from a plume. But we could end up seeing two disasters on shore, because the plume will eventually work its way there."
With no confirmation that BP's attempts to stop the flow of oil have succeeded, the damage is likely to get worse. If this "top kill" method of plugging the hole with concrete and mud fails, then the only option left is a relief well, which will take until August at the earliest to become operational. In the meantime, the surrounding ocean will become deadlier every day that passes. And even if the plug works, it may well be too late. As Dr McKinney pointed out: "At the depth that these plumes are at, the sea will be toxic for God knows how long."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)